The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

2.) If between 1930-1945, you were given the chance (without repercussion) to kill Hitler, would you do it? Would doing it be immoral, permissible or obligatory? why?

3.) Was Hitler's suicide immoral, permissible or obligatory? why?

4.) What's your favourite colour?

1) I find the traditional definition of suicide immoral, though others disagree strongly and rightly (to their logic system). Permissible is sort of pointless in the sense that there is no practical way of exercising a ban. Obviously I do not feel it is obligatory.

2) Knowing what I know now, unlikely, I would. Thus I would not find it immoral, it would be permissible, yet not obligatory.

3) From my perspective, it was not immoral, it wss permissible and was not obligatory.

LuckyR wrote:1) I find the traditional definition of suicide immoral, though others disagree strongly and rightly (to their logic system). Permissible is sort of pointless in the sense that there is no practical way of exercising a ban. Obviously I do not feel it is obligatory.

So suicide is immoral (by your standards), that's fair.

Could you clarify how exercising a ban or the inability to would have any bearing on it's moral standing? As far as I know suicide is illegal in my country (that's banned, right?) and while nobody charges the dead person with an offence, if you were to assist in someone's suicide, you're in trouble.

LuckyR wrote:2) Knowing what I know now, unlikely, I would. Thus I would not find it immoral, it would be permissible, yet not obligatory.

To clarify, killing Hitler would not be immoral and while not obligatory, it would be permissable?

LuckyR wrote:3) From my perspective, it was not immoral, it wss permissible and was not obligatory.

Again clarifying, Hitler killing himself (his suicide) was not immoral and while not obligatory, it was permissible?

LuckyR wrote:4) Blue

Nice choice!

Now, if I have understood your responses correctly, Hitler's suicide is an exception to your moral judgement of suicide on the whole.

In (1) you say suicide is immoral and the idea of it being permissible is sort of pointless.

But in (3) you say Hitler's suicide is not immoral and is permissible.

What if, as it turns out, Hitler's continued existence until 1945 actually meant that another even more dastardly foe, who's name history does not record but who would have done all the bad things that Hitler did but more competently, was kept from rising to power?

Steve3007 wrote:
What if, as it turns out, Hitler's continued existence until 1945 actually meant that another even more dastardly foe, who's name history does not record but who would have done all the bad things that Hitler did but more competently, was kept from rising to power?

It's a great point Steve3007, I agree that (hypothetically speaking) eliminating something deemed bad from the past wouldn't necessarily result a better future and could actually result in a worse one. This is definitely worth considering in question 2.

The questions I've posed and their order are not arbitrary, would you care to answer them one by one? I'd be interested in your answers given your depth of consideration.

1.1 It is moral/immoral to varying degrees depending on the circumstances. It is immoral to the extent that it causes pain to others.

1.2 I think I'd have to say that it is permissible because, as a general rule, we own our own lives.

1.3. I think it could never realistically be said to be obligatory.

2. Yes I think I would do it, although I can't be certain because I've never killed anyone before and might not be able to bring myself to do it. This might depend very much on the method. Pressing a button from a thousand miles away or standing face-to-face with him and plunging a knife into his belly? Doing it would not be obligatory. It would be permissible. I'm not sure if it would be immoral. If I decided it was not permissible then I would have to be an absolute pacifist who believes that violence can never be justified under any circumstances. I am not that.

3. Hitler's suicide was permissible and not obligatory. Again, I'm not sure if it was immoral.

4. Yellow. (I'm a bit indecisive and not necessarily consistent. And I think this is like asking for a favourite song. It depends on the mood and the circumstances.)

1.1 It is moral/immoral to varying degrees depending on the circumstances. It is immoral to the extent that it causes pain to others.

1.2 I think I'd have to say that it is permissible because, as a general rule, we own our own lives.

1.3. I think it could never realistically be said to be obligatory.

2. Yes I think I would do it, although I can't be certain because I've never killed anyone before and might not be able to bring myself to do it. This might depend very much on the method. Pressing a button from a thousand miles away or standing face-to-face with him and plunging a knife into his belly? Doing it would not be obligatory. It would be permissible. I'm not sure if it would be immoral. If I decided it was not permissible then I would have to be an absolute pacifist who believes that violence can never be justified under any circumstances. I am not that.

3. Hitler's suicide was permissible and not obligatory. Again, I'm not sure if it was immoral.

I might need to be more clear in my future questions. I'm asking a moral question in all questions aside from the one on colour so each one requires one of the following (along with any reasoning you feel like you want to share) either immoral (not permissible or obligatory), morally permissible (not immoral or obligatory) or morally obligatory (not immoral and beyond merely permissible)

Steve3007 wrote: 4. Yellow. (I'm a bit indecisive and not necessarily consistent. And I think this is like asking for a favourite song. It depends on the mood and the circumstances.)

I might need to be more clear in my future questions. I'm asking a moral question in all questions aside from the one on colour so each one requires one of the following (along with any reasoning you feel like you want to share) either immoral (not permissible or obligatory), morally permissible (not immoral or obligatory) or morally obligatory (not immoral and beyond merely permissible)

OK, I see. So you seem to be using "immoral", "permissible" and "obligatory" to represent three points along an acceptability spectrum. I don't think the question can simply be reduced to these three points. It's a continuum and it depends heavily on circumstances.

I might need to be more clear in my future questions. I'm asking a moral question in all questions aside from the one on colour so each one requires one of the following (along with any reasoning you feel like you want to share) either immoral (not permissible or obligatory), morally permissible (not immoral or obligatory) or morally obligatory (not immoral and beyond merely permissible)

OK, I see. So you seem to be using "immoral", "permissible" and "obligatory" to represent three points along an acceptability spectrum. I don't think the question can simply be reduced to these three points. It's a continuum and it depends heavily on circumstances.

What if, as it turns out, Hitler's continued existence until 1945 actually meant that another even more dastardly foe, who's name history does not record but who would have done all the bad things that Hitler did but more competently, was kept from rising to power?

You can tell the sci-fi fans :)

1. Suicide is usually fine, just misguided. It's your life and you can do as you will within the usual obvious boundaries. However, since we are going to die soon enough anyway, haste to get there is only sensible if one is suffering terrible incurable illness, not the angst of the young and terminally frustrated. There's no rush. The longer I spend on this Earth the more I know that stasis is an illusion and a form of denial that causes us to be surprised when circumstances change, even though change is inevitable.

2. Don't know, for Steve's reason. Also, the dramatic nature of Hitler's capturing of the German people's minds, basically turning half of them into frothing bigoted idiots, has served as a cautionary tale. Given the shocking number of parallels of Hitler when he started out and Trump as he is starting out, one can only hope that lesson has stuck well enough to short-circuit what would might have been a faster descent. When once powerful and proud people are reduced to poverty and scrabbling for a living, increasing numbers are attracted to naive disrupters promoting overly simplistic and long-discredited "magic bullet solutions".

3. Hitler's suicide was for the best for all involved. It's not as though the usual moral considerations - upset caused to family and friends - applied in his situation after his years of destructive lunacy and decay. By the same token, it's okay to kill rats if they threaten the harvest.

4. I don't have a favourite colour - a particular shade of just about any colour in a certain light will attract me. The quality of the light makes a huge difference to visual beauty in much the same way as acoustics hugely affect the beauty of music (something that anyone who has heard quality music being turned to mush in the dissonant echoes of Sydney's Entertainment Centre will testify).

LuckyR wrote:1) I find the traditional definition of suicide immoral, though others disagree strongly and rightly (to their logic system). Permissible is sort of pointless in the sense that there is no practical way of exercising a ban. Obviously I do not feel it is obligatory.

So suicide is immoral (by your standards), that's fair.

Could you clarify how exercising a ban or the inability to would have any bearing on it's moral standing? As far as I know suicide is illegal in my country (that's banned, right?) and while nobody charges the dead person with an offence, if you were to assist in someone's suicide, you're in trouble.

LuckyR wrote:2) Knowing what I know now, unlikely, I would. Thus I would not find it immoral, it would be permissible, yet not obligatory.

To clarify, killing Hitler would not be immoral and while not obligatory, it would be permissable?

LuckyR wrote:3) From my perspective, it was not immoral, it wss permissible and was not obligatory.

Again clarifying, Hitler killing himself (his suicide) was not immoral and while not obligatory, it was permissible?

LuckyR wrote:4) Blue

Nice choice!

Now, if I have understood your responses correctly, Hitler's suicide is an exception to your moral judgement of suicide on the whole.

In (1) you say suicide is immoral and the idea of it being permissible is sort of pointless.

But in (3) you say Hitler's suicide is not immoral and is permissible.

If you were to respond again to each question, what would you say?

Thanks for the later clarification on permissability. To amend, I find suicide immoral personally, permissible for society as a whole and not obligatory.

LuckyR wrote:
Thanks for the later clarification on permissability. To amend, I find suicide immoral personally, permissible for society as a whole and not obligatory.

So is the moral standard you hold for yourself different from the standard you hold for others?

Maybe I have misunderstood. I'm just not clear on what you mean by "permissible for society as a whole" because as you know a society can't commit suicide. I take it as saying, if anyone else in society wants to commit suicide, it is morally permissible for them to do so.

LuckyR wrote:
Thanks for the later clarification on permissability. To amend, I find suicide immoral personally, permissible for society as a whole and not obligatory.

So is the moral standard you hold for yourself different from the standard you hold for others?

Maybe I have misunderstood. I'm just not clear on what you mean by "permissible for society as a whole" because as you know a society can't commit suicide. I take it as saying, if anyone else in society wants to commit suicide, it is morally permissible for them to do so.

Yes, exactly that. Suicide is immoral to me, though I would not disagree with those who find it morally acceptable and would not seek to limit their options legally.

So is the moral standard you hold for yourself different from the standard you hold for others?

Maybe I have misunderstood. I'm just not clear on what you mean by "permissible for society as a whole" because as you know a society can't commit suicide. I take it as saying, if anyone else in society wants to commit suicide, it is morally permissible for them to do so.

Yes, exactly that. Suicide is immoral to me, though I would not disagree with those who find it morally acceptable and would not seek to limit their options legally.

Do you have other moral standards where you are an exception? Perhaps something that is permissible for you but immoral for everyone else?

Yes, exactly that. Suicide is immoral to me, though I would not disagree with those who find it morally acceptable and would not seek to limit their options legally.

Do you have other moral standards where you are an exception? Perhaps something that is permissible for you but immoral for everyone else?

When put like that it's not a good look. However, it looks to me that Lucky simply holds himself to certain standards (as we tend to do) but he prefers where practicable to give others the freedom to subscribe to their own standards, rather than believing they should adopt his particular ethics ... unlike many busybody bastards out there who couldn't keep their sticky beaks to themselves to save their lives